MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113612657 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000023841

Prognostic role of urokinase plasminogen activator in hepatocellular carcinoma

2020· article· en· W3113612657 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pengxian Tao, Lei Gao, Haiyuan Li, Bofang Wang, Xuemei Li, Ying Zhang, Hao Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtease and Inhibitor Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineMEDLINECochrane LibraryOdds ratioConfidence intervalHazard ratioInternal medicineOncologyMeta-analysisHepatocellular carcinoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have showed that the high expression of urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) in pathology and serology is closely related to the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there are no systematic reviews for these evidence, and the association between uPA and HCC is still not completely understood. Therefore, we will undertake a systematic review of the literature to summarize previous evidence regarding this topic, in order to clarify the prognostic significance of uPA in HCC. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Studies comparing the HCC patients with high and low expression of uPA on the clinicopathological features and the prognosis are eligible for this review. Outcomes include all endpoints about survival and clinicopathological features. Prospective or retrospective primary studies which published in English will be included. Four databases of Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library will be systematically searched from their inception to Mar 2021 to retrieve relevant studies. Reference lists of included studies will be manually reviewed and grey literatures will be identified by Google Scholar. Two reviewers will independently screen the records and extract the information and data of the included studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale will be used to assess the quality of included studies. Hazard ratio and 95% confidence interval will be pooled to assess the association between uPA expression and the prognosis. Pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence interval will be used for other outcomes. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the Cochrane Q test and I2 statistic, and a subgroup analysis will be performed if necessary. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation method will be applied to assess the certainty of evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol required information extracted from previously published articles. So, there is no ethical problem in this study. We plan to publish our findings in peer-reviewed journals and relevant conference proceedings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (no.CRD42020150340).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicProtease and Inhibitor MechanismsFrench-language works237,207